My Library

In the first instance, I don't see why we have to get locked into, and stay locked into, the term "Psychokinesis (PK)." As the next few years passed, and this "poking around" experiment became the Big Deal it did, I began to note that people focused on the so-called PK squiggle. And in this light, I've heard of at least one skeptic who said the squiggle has a more "rational explanation." But on the SAME piece of paper is another factor -- my quick sketch. This turned out to be a fair diagram of an actual Josephson junction device, and at SRI I asked to see one the next day. Puthoff, I, and several others compared the sketch to the real thing. I had never heard of a Josephson junction before, much less seen one. The effect took place as I did the sketch, but it is the sketch that most people avoid mentioning since. For my part, I have consistently said that I was NOT trying to affect the equipment when the effect occurred. GET IT? I WAS NOT TRYING TO AFFECT THE EQUIPMENT. Thus, if PK is defined as an intention by a subject to affect whatever, then this experiment was not a PK experiment. So SOMETHING ELSE must have been going on. My own guesstimate as to what this MAY have been is as follows. What is loosely referred to as the Observer Theory in quantum mechanics clearly stipulates that it is not possible to observe reality without changing it. If, for example, one observes a certain particle collision experiment, or wave experiment, or light which can be either particle or wave, the activity OBSERVED is affected by the observer(s) watching it.